Politics & Media

May 07, 2015, 08:45AM

Garland Reveals the Left's Dirty Secret

An extremist who hates the Muslim religion, Pamela Geller, held a contest in Garland, Texas on Sunday to see who could draw the best caricature of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. Two Islamist extremists—not of the trained variety—showed up with automatic weapons to enforce their religion's ban on depicting The Prophet, but were gunned down by a cop armed only with a handgun. That's one Texas sharpshooter.

It's hard to find anything positive about Geller, and I haven't bothered to research her because who she is has no real relevance to the Constitutional issues involved in Garland. What her sponsorship of this event has done, though, is to illustrate the dirty secret of the American left, which is that they hold the concept of free expression in appallingly low regard.

The left pays lip service to wanting a just and free society, but what they really mean is as long as it’s done their way. You might think that their main concern after it is proven once again that you can't draw the wrong Islam-themed picture without putting your life in danger is that this is an unacceptable situation in this country. I haven’t heard one person on the left address this point. What I did witness was a torrent of abuse directed at Geller who, while she organized the drawing contest, is merely a distraction from what actually matters.

Bad people get to do bad things in this country, right out in public, in exercising their right of free expression. The courts have upheld the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, and Westboro Baptist is free to spew its hatred at military funerals. Neither of these groups are darlings of the left—and they’d stop them if not for the Constitution—so you might think that by the time that Garland happens they might have an understanding of how this works. You’d be wrong though, as the debate from the left is all about Geller, who’s been set up as a strawman.

The standard-issue liberal, in the absence of an easy target like Geller, would have to confront the actual issue, which is censorship enforced with violence. The other little secret this group has is that it’s forbidden to criticize Islam. Mocking religious outliers such as Tim Tebow or Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson is de rigueur on the left, as they are Christians, but the same doesn’t hold for Islam. Any criticism of Islam, in fact, will most likely get you branded as a bigot or racist, as Bill Maher can tell you.

As it’s a knee-jerk response from the left to condemn any criticism of Islam—which the Garland event implicitly did—they would be hard-pressed to know how to respond if, instead of Geller, a Muslim reformist had organized the event as a form of protest. Based on past events, I’m pretty sure they’d try to discredit such a person, just as they have done with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim who speaks out about the repression she suffered under the religion. Though she requires bodyguards to protect her from constant death threats, she’s dishonestly attacked by the left. The intent is to discredit and, ultimately, to censor her.

If anyone is expecting the American left to defend the free speech of someone they disagree with, they’re in for a long wait. The left is infected with the virus of political correctness, which means that consensus is favored over free thought. Bill Maher, who has always been a good liberal, goes against the grain on Islam and he's vilified. Hollywood liberal Ben Affleck goes on his TV show Real Time and fatuously calls him a "racist." Labeling him in this way is part of what liberals do well—censor people—even if they were once your comrade in arms.

The scariest thing I heard from a good liberal this week is that she sees little difference between those "inciting violence" and those doing it. Keep in mind that this is in reference to Garland, with the people threatening the violence being radical extremists and would-be murderers, while the ones "inciting" violence are sitting in a room drawing pictures. This kind of thinking is downright delusional, though it is not uncommon on the left. "Black Lives Matter" marches are regularly threatened with violence, but this person would explode in rage if that were used as a pretext to stop them. She wants Geller stopped though.

Stopping Geller will not be so easy, and this is going to get interesting because she is saying she will take her art contests to other cities. Many liberals will call for a ban on her events, though they won’t be able to make a legal case for it. The KKK gets parade permits, after all. As for her "inciting violence," unless she calls for a mosque to be burned down, or something equivalent, that's not going to stick either. Blaming someone for "inciting the violence" of fanatics who are willing to kill you for saying the wrong thing or drawing the wrong cartoon is an absurd concept, as it legitimizes the motives of murderers. I’m not a Muslim and don't plan on obeying any Muslim proscriptions on my behavior. I would hope no one else would either.

Newer Politics & Media

Discussion

Chris, what the fuck does this situation have to do with the first amendment. The government did not stop or try to stop the event. By your logic, any mass murder attempt is a violation of the first amendment. Furthermore, Geller was not a victim in this case. She was safe inside and wasn't even aware of the shooting until after the gunmen were dead. Third, who precisely has called for the government to intervene and prevent Geller from spewing her hate? People saying that she was asking for it are not trying to prevent her right to say such hateful things, the are just exercising their rate to spew hateful rhetoric as well.

Texan.
You missed the point. The left would ban various kinds of speech if they had the power. That's what they're telling us, possibly explicitly.
Texas...where you go to be outgunned at an art show. Not, unfortunately, on a military base.

Richard, it is you who is missing the point. The first amendment is to protect citizens from the government. Geller was only aided by the government, not harmed. This has nothing to do with free speech. You and Beck have suggested that the left wants to ban free speech. Who in the government is proposing such a ban? You two are worked up over fiction, and your own bigotry

Texan.
Couple of points:
Your sentences:
"You and Beck have suggested that the left wants to ban free speech. Who in the government is proposing such a ban?"
Shifty switch from left to government. Probably figured nobody would notice.
Point is, the left wants to ban certain kinds of speech where it can. You know. John Doe in Wisconsin. See FIRE. How's that True The Vote thing going there in Texas? Last I heard, she'd only been "visited" by five federal agencies.
The author's point was the left wants to ban that speech and will when they get the power.

Straw man arguments. Who is calling for a ban on free speech? What does it matter if some do if they have no power to make it happen? Are they not exercising their rights? You and Chris are lost in the weeds. I hope someone can help you two find a way out.

What's straw man about John Doe in Wisconsin? It's liberals making political speech a crime. True the Vote the same.
So the left does have some power and does repress speech they don't like. That means, should they get more power they'll repress more speech. Not at all complicated.

What is NOT straw man about J.D. in Wisconsin? How is the first amendment challenged? What does it have to do with Garland? Who specifically is the "left" and who is J.D.? You can speculate but in reality you are merely projecting your own bigotry (along with Chris and Geller) onto others. The two gunman are no more representative of Islam than those who attack abortion clinics/doctors are of Christians. In reality, the perps are all sick. That said, those who want to provoke the mentally ill are just playing with fire. That has nothing to do with 1st Amendment. It's just common sense

HeyTex? It's not nice to call someone a bigot with zero evidence. You really should learn some manners and show a little class, but perhaps your upbringing was subpar and this would be too much of a stretch for you.As I recall, in our last unfruitful engagement, you said I was using the same tactics as someone who made death threats to a woman online. You really do seem to have a constant case of the vapors, so paying any sort of attention to you is a total waste of time, though you desperately want attention. You really just don't make much sense is what it comes down to.And don't bother with trying to call me out for going ad hominem on you after you called me a bigot. Spare me your whining. You might find a more receptive audience for your brand of bullshit in the comments section of Gawker. In fact,you'd fit right in there.

Texan. If you were interested, which you're obviously not, John Doe is an investigation by a dem prosecutor in WI targeting conservative political donors and activists. In addition to pre-dawn SWAT-type raids terrifying the families, computers are taken and the vics are told they'd break another law if they mentioned it. So, yeah, lefties using what power they have to curtail speech. WSJ has a lot on it. Cue Texan's next point, sneer at the WSJ.
Actually, the number of Christians killing abortion doctors is pretty low. Two, I think, and they aren't applauded by the rest of Christianity. Time for my acronym: EKBA. Everybody Knows Better Already.

Good piece Chris, great job! I'm glad I read it. You make so many interesting points I agree with.
I'm appalled Geller is taking her competition to other cities. Going into these cities and stirring up hate and violence. That's a disgrace.
Intentionally provoking a radical group is insane. This woman is obsessed with her hatred for Islam. People like her cannot be reasoned with they can only hate.

Jessica. What's the next thing you're willing to give up? It isn't only cartoons that offends the fanatic Muslims.
Come on. You're going in a particular direction, which is self-censoring the way you live your life. Why stop at cartoons? What's next?

"big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."
Fits you to a tee. Now why don't you try to explain how this is a first amendment issue like you claim. Furthermore, Gellar tried to prevent the qround zero mosque from being built. I'd argue that since she is not part of the government it was not a violation of the first amendment but by your and her definition, she violated Muslims first amendment rights before they did hers.
P.S. Just because I point out the egregious flaws in your piece, doesn't mean you have a right to your own truth. I said your tactics were similar to John because you start a conversation with vitriol and aggression, I never suggested you made death threats. So please calm the fuck down.

It only becomes a 1st amendment issue if the Government tries to stop it. People have the same 1st amendment rights to object to Gellar and her "show" that she has to put it on. Learn the constitution before trying to right about it.

You are discussing political speech which has different rules than the First Amendment. You are also discussing "gag" orders which are also a different part of the law from 1st amendment. That said, can you answer my questions or are you going to keep bringing up irrelevant investigations?
P.S. I read and usually enjoy the WSJ

I guess you really are so clueless that you don't see the many saying she does not have the right to have her art shows,that this type of speech is hate speech and thus not protected,that the US should move towards a European model where speech is very limited etc.etc. All I can say is that you need to get out more.As for me being a bigot because I won't tolerate others' opinions, the entire point of what I wrote is that in this country that is how it works,regardless of how much we hate their opinions. So once again, your blatherings are completely devoid of making any sense.

Texan.
If you read the WSJ, you already knew that dems were trying to use the law to shut down speech they disagreed with. Whether that's a 1A issue is not relevant. What is relevant is that the left will try to shut down speech when they have the power. The same is true of gag orders. Not 1A, but indicative of what dems will do when they get the power.
However, the point is, the left will try to shut down speech when they have the power whether you can be forced to admit it's a clear 1A issue or not. And that's the point of the article. The issue is not whether people have the right to complain about Gellar--they do--but the obvious fact that, should the left get more government power they will make sure that only favored speech will be protected. Which is the point of the article.
Actually, political speech has the same rules as other speech under the 1A. In fact, that's the primary reason for the 1A.

If this were true, why didn't free speech rights change when "lefties" had control? Richard, you have clearly veered off into fantasy and projection. Therefore, I'm done trying to help your education. Have a good day.

It's not a first amendment issue until the government does it.
See John Doe in Wisconsin.
See FIRE.
Point is, the left will do it when they get a chance, as we know since they've done it when they got a chance.
But, anyway, what will you give up next? Remember, this was about a picture. Other things offend muslims. Jews, for example. Gays. Dogs. Women with uncovered hair.
See gay writer Bruce Bawer. He left the US because he was concerned about conservative Protestants. All the Right Sort are concerned about conservative Protestants. He moved to Amstersam, presumably due to its loosey-goosey social scene. Couldn't stay. Gaybashing was rampant and it wasn't the hulking Dutchmen. Lived in Oslo where it's apparently easier to avoid such things. See what he has to say.

I mentioned free speech,freedom of expression and the 1st Amendment.But you focus solely on the government intervening,as if that is what this is all about. I can only conclude you have reading comprehension issues.Plus you are the very definition of an online troll.

Sure Chris, let's pretend your subtitle never mentioned the 1st amendment (How is that for reading comprehension, bitch?) How do you explain the evangelical right? Are they not the ones who want creationism taught in schools? What about the neo-cons? Are they not the ones with the slogans of Love it or Leave it, and stupid rules about how the flag is treated? What about the Supreme court that creates no protesting zones around their court while refusing the same protection to abortion clinics because of the 1st amendment. By your reasoning, who does not want to destroy the 1st amendment and why are you only pointing to the undefinable "left"? Are YOU trying to limit THEIR free speech? Before resorting to false allegations and name calling, why don't you just once, defend your poorly reasoned article or admit your failure of logic and reason?

Let's see now.You're the guy who rushed to the defense of guys who were abusive to a woman on a dating app, right? Just so we know who we're talking about with you. Would that be because all trolls stick together perhaps? Only reason. I can think of. Not much reason for me to even try to figure lot what you are attempting to communicate. Your arguments then were as incoherent as they are here and amount to little more then bloviation so you can get some attention. You can't come into an online forum without saying "fuck" or idiotically calling people bigots? Yet you want your "arguments" taken seriously.I'll be looking for you in the Gawker comments section,so adios.

Hey Matt, why don't you produce some evidence for what you call my misreprestation? I would love to see it. Wouldn't that give you a little more integrity than coming into the comments and anonymously making accusations with no back up? Look forward to seeing what you got!!!

The evidence is in the Twitter TL on 5/4. When you ignored that I, and others, were speaking of Imminent Lawless Action in this case. You also said my statements to that were akin to blaming a rape victim. Misrepresenting my statements as such is dishonest at best.

You referenced the entire conversation. Cherry picking is only adding to your dishonesty. Then labeling others delusional? Look up Imminent Lawless Action. Then look up the holier than thou attitudes you tossed around throughout that thread before you go further into how very wrong you are.

Anyway, Matt, I want to thank you for providing that twitter conversation that did serve as a spark for me writing what I wrote. Please point how I "misrepresented" someone in that conversation in what I wrote. Did you think the piece was all about you or about our conversation? If so, sorry to disappoint you. Also, it seems you did not include your last tweet to me where I believe you told me to fuck myself. Wouldn't it have been a little more honest of you to have left that in? You advertise yourself on your profile as a Christian, but I don't think Jesus would approve, do you?

An added "bonus:" You really tried hard to place yourself as the intellectual superior in that thread, that piece, and throughout these comments. Only proving your lack of integrity and complete dishonesty for me.

An ad hom attack now? Why am I not surprised? Actually, calling someone out for his dishonesty and deception is very Christ-like. Sans the language I used, but that's between He and I. Not you and I. I won't deny telling you to fuck yourself. Ever. You purposefully misrepresented my statements to gain what? Some Constitutional higher ground? Look up the the laws Chris. Find some integrity. And maybe then you won't be questioned and challenged.

I fail to see an actual point here regarding what I wrote.Do you think this was all about you?! Sure,you fit the archetype of the liberal I was writing about, but it stops there. Seems like you're using this space to troll me about something personal because I blocked you for your inappropriate behavior. That seems kind of weird and creepy. It is well time you moved on Matt.

I'm not as vain to think that it's about me. Nor am I trolling. You lied about a conversation I was a part of. You used that here. And we're what, a month out from that crap? This "article" was brought to my attention yesterday. I fully intended on letting you and your high horse ride off into the sunset. But, as you did initially, you've again warped the words of others to fit your own agenda. That, is what this is about. So don't flatter yourself by inflating your ego anymore than it already is.

He loves to use the "weird and creepy" insult here too. Sad that his two go to responses are misrepresentation and juvenile name calling. He is definitely getting a bit too weird and creepy for me. Chris, if you are not going to seek help, please, at least, seek out a Thesaurus Thank you mjw511 for your insight, it confirms what we all here already suspected. Welcome to Splice Today I hope you can use this experience to enjoy some of the other postings here.

Your entire piece is a lie, Chris. You have no solid point of evidence that anyone "on the left" is against the 1st Amendment for any person, or group. YOUR ignoring of both the definition of incite, as well as the parameters of "imminent lawless acts" and what falls into that category, including court cases as precedents, is careless at best. But, since you push it as fact, it's dishonest. I'm certain you know what synonyms are. What's a synonym for dishonest Chris? Better yet, what are the characteristics of a dishonest person?

When the entirety of your piece is the assertion that the left wants to take the 1st Amendment away from people, with nothing but your bloated self importance to back it up, guess what that is Chris, it's a lie. All you have is an opinion. And ill-supported one at that. Have you figured out what imminent lawless acts are yet?

So my entire piece is a "lie" but it is also an "opinion." That's a very powerful argument. I wouldn't really know how to refute that one. Anyways, congrats for finding a way around my block of you on twitter. I don't have a block function in the comments section here, so you are free to troll away. Won't respond again though.